Talk:Captain Carron
Well, in my review of history, I was able to determine that there was indeed a Union captain named Carron at Ft. Pillow. However, his first name, personal bio, and final fate went unrecorded. So, should we move him to Historicals with a literary note explaining this, or just leave him alone? TR 16:55, May 25, 2010 (UTC) :Anything to get to 800, right? Turtle Fan 18:50, May 25, 2010 (UTC) ::I suppose. We have historicals who do far less in their "appearances" than Carron does in FP. Too bad he's just one of those footnotes of history. TR 20:37, May 25, 2010 (UTC) :::Actually, FP's got quite a few of those. Even the POV characters Leaming and Robinson don't have much information available. Turtle Fan 22:22, May 25, 2010 (UTC) ::I am going to have the same problem with GMBML! For instance, Flavus is historical but the info I put in came from the novel and HT's Historical Notes at the end of the book. I did find a wikipedia article but it was in German and only a dozen sentences in several paragraphs. I expect the same thing for several Roman POVs too. ::For that matter, GotS has a dozen, not yet created articles for members of the 47th North Carolina. HT had only names, ages and perhaps occupation to make up the characters. ML4E 22:56, May 28, 2010 (UTC) :::Geez, and I thought Nick Skeres and Ingram Frizer were hard to write. Turtle Fan 23:25, May 28, 2010 (UTC) ::::Perhaps some sort of "Minor Historical Figures" subcat is in order? TR 01:28, May 29, 2010 (UTC) :::::Perhaps. We'd be giving up any hope of reaching 800 in the near future, if that matters. Turtle Fan 02:20, May 29, 2010 (UTC) ::::That is a point against the idea. TR 14:49, May 29, 2010 (UTC) :::::It is nice to maintain a few very large categories. On the other hand, the fact that a category is very large is usually an indicator that it's not subdivided to the level of precision we usually like. Turtle Fan 15:40, May 29, 2010 (UTC) ::::::This is the first time that a viable idea for sub-dividing for precision has come up on that category. We've thrown around possible sub-cats that are more of the "trivial" variety that wouldn't have reduced the size of the overall category (e.g. the In Need of Pics cat, or the possible "Lived Longer/Died Sooner" stuff). This really would be creating a narrowly tailored category for people who are remembered for minor things (if they are remembered at all). ::::::Given our quest for 800 (and implicitly 1000), I am content to leave things well enough alone at the moment. TR 15:46, May 29, 2010 (UTC) :::::::I agree. For one thing, despite our drive for precision, it would not be a very precise category. There'd be a huge gray area depending on a person's interests and expertise. Turtle Fan 17:39, May 29, 2010 (UTC) ::"Obscure Historical Figures" might be a better name for it if and when we revisit the idea. For now, I agree that we should just leave it alone. ML4E 19:14, May 30, 2010 (UTC)